Sayf Ibn 'Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship

Sayf Ibn TTmar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship
by Ella Landau-Tasseron (Jerusalem)
In recent years attention has been drawn to the notorious historian

Sayf b. TJmar (d. 180/796). His work has been reevaluated both in itself
and in the larger context of a new approach to early historiography. This
paper is an attempt to add some aspects to the discussion of Sayf s work.
Since Wellhausen published his devastating critique of Sayf in 1899 the
latter's name became a symbol of unreliability, an "anathema" as Dennett
put it, to most students of Islam.1) Only rarely was a tradition of Sayf
accepted as valid, the usual practice being to reject a priori every tradition
which bears his name. This negative attitude is sometimes shared by
modern Muslim scholars. The Shaykh Muhammad Hasan Aal Yäsin, while
contemplating on Islamic history, was very disturbed by the accounts of
the ridda wars. According to him the Arab nation is too sensible, critical
and noble of character, to have turned its back on the true teaching of the
Prophet in order to follow the pathetic figures of the would-be prophets. Aal
Yäsin believes that the ridda never occurred, but was invented by the hold-
ers of power for political purposes. In order to prove this he wrote a small
book in which he exposed as liars all TabarTs sources on the ridda, in parti-
cular Sayf b. TJmar.2) Another scholar, Murtadä al-'Askari, studied the
events of the first fitna (following the death of TJthmän). 'Askari was not as
blunt as Aal Yäsin in stating the purpose of his book which he entitled Ü4&-
dallah b. Saba': a study of what was written by historians and orientalists
about Ibn Saba* and other Islamic stories.3) He nevertheless went much far-
ther in his criticism of Sayf, T^bari's main source on these events. The
main point in Askarfs argument is that (Abdallah b. S aba', the first disse-
minator of ShTite ideas, was not a historical figure at all but a fictional one,
invented by Sayf alongside many others. 'Askari pointed out that the sub-
*) Dennett p. 58. Wellhausen, Skizzenund Vorarbeitenvol. 6, especially pp. 1-7.

2
) M. H. Aal Yäsin, Nusüs al-riddafi ta'rikh al-tabari, Baghadad-Beirut 1973.
3
) M. al-'Askari, 'Abdallah b. Saba\ bahth wa-tahqiqfima katabahu al-mu'arrik-
hün wa-l-nvustashriqun *an ibn saba* wa-qi$a§ islämiyya ukhrav mundhu al-qarn al-
thanl al-hijn hatta al-yawm, Cairo 1381.
1 Islam LXVII, Heft 1
Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/13/15 4:46 AM
2 Ella Landau-Tasseron
ject was emotionally and theologically charged to the point that he re-
frained temporarily from publishing the book.4) By this remark and by the
venomous anti-Sayf tone of the book one may detect a bias and a purpose in
Askari's argument. It seems that he found unsavoury the idea that a Yeme-
nite Jew (Abdalläh b. 8 aba1) succeeded in putting into the heads of many
Muslims ideas which were alien to Islam (as Askari conceives of it), there-
by instigating them against TJthman and actually causing the first rup-
ture in the ideal Muslim community.5) The basic assumption at the bottom
of such an attitude is identical with that of Aal Yäsin, i. e. that the Muslim
community was too sensible to let such a thing happen. To do Askari jus-
tice it must be recalled that the religiously-impartial Petersen was of a very
similar opinion about the Saba'iyya and about Sayf, who is the sole source
on them.6) It is also worth noting that one of Sayf s accounts which was
considered particularly fanciful by Askari, won the confidence of other
scholars on account of its inner logic. The beginning of hostilities in the
battle of the Camel (36/656) is obscure, because many sources describe a
near-settlement between the two parties, yet they do not explain why this
settlement was not consummated after all, and hostilities broke out. Sayf is
the only source who offers an explanation. According to him the followers
of Abdalläh b. Saba', who were in AH's camp, were afraid that a settlement
meant the handing over, or punishment, of TTthman's murderers. Since
they had been involved in the murder before they joined Ali, they would be
the losers were such a settlement carried out. Therefore they secretly
attacked both camps thus disrupting the negotiations and provoking the
battle. Askari firmly rejects this explanation on the ground that such a
major event as the battle of the Camel could not have happened on the ini-
tiative of an obscure group, outside the control of the Muslim leaders of
both parties. But L. Lau (1979) and A. R. Armush (1972), in what seem to
be independent studies, reached the conclusion that Sayf s explanation is
not only the sole existing one, but is also governed by inner logic so that
there is no reason to reject it.7) Oddly, like Askari's rejection, Armush's
acceptance of Sayf s explanation was inspired by theological and commu-
nal sentiments. To begin with, he states that thefitna was used by the ene-
mies in order to revile Islam. He then observes that in Sayf s report the
§ahaba come out clean handed, whereas in the other traditions such things
4
) Ibid., introduction pp. 4-5.
5
) Ibid., p. 6.
e
) Petersen, €AK and Mu'äwiya pp. 78 ff.
7
) Askari pp. 10-11. L. Lau, "Sayf b. IJmar and the battle of the Camel", IQ
23, 1979 pp. 103-10. A. R. Armush, Al-fitna wa-waq€at al-jamaL, Beirut 1972.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn TJmar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 3
are imputed to them which are disgraceful. (Armush argues that no person
"with whom God is pleased" (raîya cMah *anhu) could have acted in the
way described in these sources, and only Sayf s presentation does the
$ahaba justice.8)
Although free from religious and communal motives, Wellhausen's bias
against Sayf is no less strong than that of Aal Yäsin and 'Askari. For Well-
hausen, Sayf was the main representative of what he called the "Iraqi
school of historiography", therefore his criticism ofthat school seems to be
levelled almost exclusively at Sayf. Wellhausen's followers differed in the
intensity of their attitude. De Goeje highly praised Wellhausen's criticism
yet he hesitated to call Sayf s report (on the conquest of Syria) outright
fiction (but he rejected it as a whole anyway). Petersen labeled Sayf s
accounts of the/ "extensive falsifications", "fabrications whose histori-
cal absurdity was fully shown up by Wellhausen*. Goitein praised Wellhau-
sen's critique and called Sayf a fabricator.9) Such epithets as those used by
Caetani to depict Sayf s reports are typical: romantic, legendary, imag-
inary, arbitrary, invented, obscure, confused, artistically falsified.10) Gibb
and Rosenthal see Sayf s material as historical romance, a "colourful nove-
listic presentation" of the events, i. e. not much historical value is to be
attached to it according to them.11) So small is the value attached to Sayf
by C. Cahen, that in his long survey of Arab historiography (1986) he men-
tions him in one short footnote only, giving the monopoly on the early
accounts of the ridda to Wathima, and of theîifA to Wäqidi.12) Tradition-
alism suited Schacht in this case, and he wrote that Sayf "is known for the
unreliable and fictional character of his narratives".13) And Shoufani in his
reconstruction of the ridda presumes that sources other than Sayf are as a
rule preferable.14) Even beyond the schools-thesis which favours theMedi-
nan school, suspecting the Iraqi one as a whole, Sayf appears sometimes to
be set alone on one scale, all the other historians (including the Iraqis) on
the other.15) A. A. Düri seems to offer a more balanced view in which Sayf
fares no worse than other Iraqi akkbaris. In his view Sayf s narratives are
8
) 'Armush pp. 6-8.
9
) Petersen p. 78. De Goeje, Memoire passim, especially p. 28. Goitein, "Did
TJmar forbid the Jews to live in Jerusalem? *
10
) Caetani, Annali vol. 2 passim.
n
) Gibb, *Ta 'rikh» p. 114. Rosenthal, Historiography pp. 166, 188.
12
) Cahen, "Historiographie" p. 139 n. 18.
13
) Schacht, «Müsä b. TJqba" p. 296.
14
) Shoufani, Ridda p. 117. See also Hinds' critique of Sayf in The first Arab
conquests in Färs", Iran, 1984.
15
) E.g. Petersen; see below n. 22.
1* Islam LXVII, Heft 1

Authenticated
biased in content and romantic in style, but so are the traditions of Abu
Mikhnaf, 'Awana and Nasr b. Muzähim. At the same time Düri points out
that these historians did not invent their narratives but derived them from
sources, and he holds as of prime importance their contribution to Muslim
historiography.16) This seemingly balanced attitude should be assessed in
connection with other notions of Düri, in particular the general reliability of
the Muslim sources, and the negative role played by the Shu'übiyya. Düri's
confidence in Muslim historiography as a whole is a salient feature of his
book on Arab historiography, Bahthfi nashyat *ilm al-taynkh 'inda al-'arab,
published in 1960. Eleven years earlier he opined that much forged mate-
rial entered the bulk of Muslim historiography, and the main culprits were
the Shu'ubites who sought to promote their interests by these lies.17)
Admittedly this theory appears only in a diluted form in the Nashua, yet it
helps to explain why Sayf (who is not considered as Shu'ubite) received
much less hard criticism from Düri than from other scholars. However,
Düri does not treat all Muslim historians as equals. He works with the con-
cept of the schools, giving more credit to the Medinan than to the Iraqi just
as did Wellhausen and his followers (although to him the Medinan school
does not mean quite the same thing).18)
A rather balanced if puzzling assessment of Sayf can be found in J.
'All's survey of Tabari's sources. The puzzle is created by 'AlFs inconsis-
tency. First he says that Tabari ignored the "weakness of weak sources"
(du'f al-du€afa*) such as Ibn al-Kalbi, Sayf etc. and drew freely on their
material. In another place he observes that Tabari did not think highly of
Sayf yet preferred him to Wäqidi and Mada'ini. Yet later in the same
survey <Ali states that Sayf was erudite when it comes to Islamic history
even though the muhaddithun discredited him, and that there is no ground
to Brockelmann's claim that Tabari doubted Sayf s traditions. As for
Brockelmann's opinion that Sayf was biased for his tribe Tamim, it still
needs proof.19) thus expresses at once the negative approach to Sayf
and a more balanced assessment of him.
The scholar who invalidated the schools-theory in general and the
rejection of Sayf in particular is A. Noth. He has shown that Sayf can not
be held personally responsible for wholesale fabrication as was previously
believed, because he used a great number of sources, just as did the other
historians; the inner contradictions in Sayf s traditions are not the fruit of
16
) Düri (Conrad) pp. 46-7, 140, 142, 144-5.
17
) Idem, Muqaddima pp. 10 ff.
18
) Düri (Arabic) pp. 61 if., 118ff.
19
) < 1 , "Mawarid99 1/179, 182, 2/163-4.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 5
his resourceful mind, on the contrary, they reflect his adherence to his
sources which were often contradictory, as Islamic sources are.20) Details
of Sayf s sources were furnished by Myednikov (1897), Sezgin (1957), and
more recently by M. Hinds (1979), who gave a useful, succint summary of
his predecessors and followed up their work.21) Some scholars have already
begun to lend more credence to Sayf s accounts and to incorporate them in
historical reconstruction on an equal footing with the other material.
Nevertheless, the prejudice against Sayf is so strong that Hinds echoes it
even while working against it. His article starts with the question "why did
al-Tabari give such prominence to this material (i. e. Sayf s reports) when it
is clear that by his time no small measure of odium attached to Sayf s
name?" This is precisely the question posed by the traditional (western)
critics of Sayf. Petersen asks why Tabari preferred a "corrupt source" such
as Sayf to the "pure" ones, i. e. 'Awana and AbüMikhnaf. His answer is that
Tabari largely agreed with Sayf s attitude towards (Ali. Brockelmann says
that Sayf went overboard in glorifying his tribe Tamim; he falsified and
garbled the material but Tabari chose him as his main source (on a certain
period) because his stories are attractive and well told.22) De Goeje holds
that Tabari quoted Sayf only because his accounts are so rich in detail, not
because they are reliable. To illustrate his point de Goeje remarks that
Balädhuri knew Sayf, but did not quote him because he did not trust him.23)
It may be noted that perhaps there is another way to account for Balädhu-
ri's selection of material. He may have refrained from quoting Sayf preci-
sely because of the richness in detail mentioned above, for the FutÜfy al-bul-
dän is not a voluminous work, doubtlessly planned to be what it is by the
author himself. Had he quoted Sayf he would have increased the size of the
book considerably. Therefore when he does quote him, he takes from him
only a detail, or a story epitomized in just a few lines.24) Likewise Khalifa b.
Khayyät al-TJsfuri, an early and much appreciated historian (d. 240/854),
quotes two short pieces of information from Sayf, concerning the date and
20
) A. Noth, "Der Charakter der ersten grossen Sammlungen von Nachrichten
zur frühen Kalifenzeit", Der Islam (47 (1971) pp. 168-199. Idem, Qudlenkritische
Studien zu Themen Formen und Tendenzen fruhislamischer Geschichtsüberlieferung,
Bonn 1973.
21
) M. Hinds, "Sayf b. Omar's sources on Arabia*, Sources for the history of
Arabia, Riyad 1979, I 2 pp. 3-16.
22
) Petersen pp. 150 f. Note that Abu Mikhnaf and (Awana also belong to the
"Iraqi school". Brockelmann, GAL 8 1/213-4; see also the Arabic translation by
Abd al-'Alim al-Najjar (Cairo) 3/36.
23
) De Goeje p. 28.
24
) Balädhuri, Futüfy pp. 253, 307.

Authenticated
the spoils of the battle of Jalülä'.25) Significantly the editor of Khalifa's

Tcfrikh, A. D. al-TJmari, does not include Sayf in the detailed list of Khali-
fa's sources. It is also interesting to note that Tabari, like Khalifa, records
the date of Jalülä* from Sayf, but Tabari's information differs from that of
Khalifa, and so does the isnäd, i.e. Sayf s sources.26) This illustrates the
fact that Sayf collected various, sometimes contradictory pieces of infor-
mation from disparate sources, just as did the other historians. It thus
seems that Sayf was not an "anathema" to Muslim historians, and the ques-
tion why Tabari relied on him is not a real question, but one which springs
from the prejudice against him introduced into the field by Wellhausen.
In the classical literature no special „measure of odium" attached to
Sayf any more than to other early historians. For example Wäqidi, who for
Wellhausen represents the trustworthy Medinan school as against the
worthless Iraqi one, is depicted by classical authorities as a liar, weak
(da*ij) and matrük al-hadtth.*1) These are precisely the terms which the
same authorities apply to Sayf. Ironically, Abu Hätim discredits Sayf on
the ground that "his traditions are comparable to those of Wäqidi."28) Like-
wise Ibn Ishäq, considered as reliable by Wellhausen, is rejected by classi-
cal authorities as weak and suspect (muttaham) ,29) Perhaps the reason why
early historians were criticized lies in the identity of the critics, i. e. the
myhaddithün. It has already been suggested by Hinds (following I. Abbas)
that "we may perhaps discard the judgements of Sayf made by the cM al-
hadith on the ground that they were concerned with hadith from the Pro-
phet; since no such material on Sayf s authority appears to survive, it may
be that it was suppressed."30) The latter part of this statement is open to
question since Dhahabi and Ibn Adi record hadiths claimed to have been
forged by Sayf.31) However, judging by the general character and topics of
Sayf s material, he hardly had any recourse to Hadith. Besides, weak or
forged traditions were not necessarily suppressed, on the contrary, they
could be quoted either as examples of forgery or in order to expose the forg-
ers. Now, were the dhl al-hadith disinterested in anything but hadith they
25
) Khalifa, Ta'nkh 1/107-8.
2
) Tabari 1/2471.
27
) Armush p. 7, quoting Saji, Bukhäri, Nasa*!, Ibn Rähawayh, Shafi'i, Ma'
mar.
28
) Ibn Abi Hätim, Jarh II 1/278. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib 4/295.
29
) Fihrist p. 92. Ibn Abi Hätim 2/191-4. Ibn Adi 6/2116-25. Interes-
tingly, Bukhäri omitted the negative opinions about him, Bukhäri, Tcfrikh, 1/40.
And see below.
30
) Hinds „Sayf p. 4.
31
) Dhahabi, 1/437-8. Ibn Adi 3/1271-2.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn 'Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 7
should have left the historians in peace and not bother with passing judge-
ment on them at all. Since this is not the case, and the judgement is often
unfavourable, one may assume that there may have been a reason why the
muhaddithün were not indifferent but hostile towards the early historians.
From the muhaddithun's point of view, the historians who were not versed
in the specific discipline of hadith as well, may have been not only worthless
but also a menace, precisely because they gave their material the appear-
ance of hadith. Using sometimes sources who transmitted both hadith and
other material, and naming their sources (i. e. providing an isnad), the akh-
bäriyyünm&y have been suspect of encroaching on a field not their own. Per-
haps this is the meaning of the accusation levelled at Waqidi32) that he
used to invent isnads: not that he pretended to use sources while in fact
having had no recourse to them, but that he imitated the muJiaddithun, or
applied the tools and methods of Hadith to foreign material so that it could
eventually pass as Hadith. The seemingly contradictory charge raised
against Ibn Ishäq that he did not use isnäd properly33), may reflect the
same tendency of the mithaddithun to keep the field for themselves. This
accusation, however, may also be interpreted as a secondary stage. The
muhaddithün, having failed in their attempt to keep their discipline pure,
accepted the encroachment of the akhbäriyyün on condition that they abide
by the rules of the game. However that may be, one should be cautious in
accepting the evidence of the rijal authorities about people other than the
transmitters of hadith proper (how far this evidence is valid at all is another
matter). As H. Hamüd points out in connection with al-Haytham b. €Adi,
apparently most of the early historians were discredited by scholars con-
cerned with Hadith but appreciated by other authorities such as Ibn al-
Nadim, Ibn Khallikän and Yäqüt.34) A problem arises when one and the
same scholar represents both the discipline of Hadith and that of history,
for example Dhahabi (d. 747/1347). In his biographical work Tadhkirat al-
Huffäz Dhahabi apologizes for omitting Wäqidf s biography "because it
was generally agreed that his hadith should not be considered; he was
exceptionally erudite but he did not master Hadith. *35) As opposed to Dha-
habi, Ibn Hajar did record Waqidfs biography but concerned himself
mainly with the opinions of the muhaddithun about him.36) It took scholars
32
) Shafi'i, quoted by «Armush p. 7.
33
) 'Armush loc. cit. <Ali 1/208 quoting athe experts on hadtth" (Warna* al-
hadith).
34
) H. H. Hamüd, "al-Haytham b. «Adi», cf. GAS 1/311.
35
) Dhahabi, Tadhkira 1/348.
36
) Ibn Hajar, TcMhib 9/363-8.

Authenticated
outside the field ofHadith such as Ihn Khallikän and Yäqüt, to record Wä-
qidi's biography without a sense of guilt and to state plainly that even
though some muhaddithun considered him as "weak", he was universally
recognized as trustworthy in history and other branches of knowledge.37)
This evaluation of Waqidi seems balanced enough, and I think that we may
take it as genuine when we are told that Ibn Hanbai, Bukhäri, Nasa*!, Abu
Da'ud and Shafi'i all considered Wäqidi as a liar or weak transmitter,
whereas scholars less rooted in Hadith particularly, such as Abu TJbayd al-
Qäsim b. Sailäm and Mus'ab al-Zubayri, judged him as thiqa.3*) There is,
however, another statement to be accounted for. Some authorities hold
that not only was Wäqidi no da'if, on the contrary, he was The Leading
Authority on Hadith (amir al-muyminin al-hadith),39) Before trying to
account for this we may draw a line of comparison between Wäqidi and Ibn
Ishäq. The latter too attracted criticism and was distrusted, not only by the
muhaddithun but by other authorities as well. Various charges were raised
against him, all of which have a theological or ethical flavor. He was a ShTi
and a Qadari, he was a flirt and played with cocks, he trusted and trans-
mitted much material from Jews and Christians. As in the case of Wäqidi,
attempts were made to clear his name. Again, it was argued that he was
amir al-muymininß al-hadith, or at least that he was a trustworthy muhad-
dith, neglected by Bukhäri and Muslim only because Malik b. Anas was
angry with him, either on account of something which he had said, or
because he exposed as false Malik's genealogy.40)
Although a study of the rijäl works shows that opinions about one and
the same transmitter often differ greatly, ranging even from "trustworthy"
to "a liar", the case of Ibn Ishäq and Wäqidi seems to constitute a special
issue. This is revealed by the concentrated effort made by Ibn Sayyid al-
Näs, a much later scholar of the 8th/14th century, to refute the charges
against them. In the introduction to the sira which he wrote he recorded all
the opinions about Ibn Ishäq and Wäqidi, both positive and negative, then
refuted the latter systematically.41) The reason why he felt obliged to do so
37
) Yäqüt, Udabä* 18/279. Ibn Khallikän 4/348.
38
) Ibn Hajar loc. cit. and cf. 'Armush p. 7.
39
) Yäqüt 18/277. Cf. Fihristp. 98 and Hadiyyat al-Ürißn 10/2. This designa-
tion of Wäqidi is ascribed to (Abd al- b. Muhammad al-Darawardi (d. 187/802),
himself a muhaddith who was not highly thought of. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib 6/353.
40
) Fihristp. 92. Yäqüt, Udabff 18/5-8. Ibn Khallikän 4/276. Ibn Abi Hätim
2/191-4. Ibn 'Adi 6/2116-25. Bukhäri 1/40. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas pp. 12-22. Dha-
habi, Tadhkira 1/73. <Ali 1/207-8. Kister p. 76. Juynboll p. 171.
41
) Ibn Sayyid al-Nas pp. 12-28. Cf. Ibn Taymiyya and other scholars in praise
of Ibn Ishäq, Kister pp. 79-80.

Authenticated
Sayf Ihn TTmar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 9
seems to be the fact that the works of Ihn Ishäq and Wäqidi have become
the foundation of the whole Sira literature, and holding negative opinion
about them meant the shaking of this foundation and the placing of the his-
torical value of the Sira under the shade of doubt. Already Ibn 'Adi (d. 3607
970) felt the problematic implications of mistrusting Ibn Ishäq, and was
reluctant to express a negative opinion of him because his traditions were
so popular. Hence his statement that even if Ibn Ishäq made mistakes, he
ought to be praised for making the Sira widely known.42) I therefore think
that when we are told that Zuhri applauded Ibn Ishäq's scholarship we may
take it as a false ascription intended to rehabilitate Ibn Ishäq, in particular
because Zuhri was considered a prime authority on both Hadith and Sira.
The differentiation between muhaddithun on the one hand, historians
and other critics on the other, seems difficult to hold because, like Zuhri,
many early muhaddithun transmitted historical material as well, or at least
such material was ascribed to them. In later periods mithaddithun and
authors of rijäl works (who were strongly Hadtth-oneut&ted) were some-
times also historians. The other side of the same coin is that Ibn Ishäq him-
self counts as muhaddith as early as the third century A. H.43). He is said
to have transmitted 17,000 legal hadiths.44) Yet the fact is that certain
scholars may be classified either as muhaddithunor as akhbäriyyün, whereas
others may not, which means that the differentiation is not baseless. That
the classification of some of the early historians is not clear-cut does not
turn the two fields into one. Nor does it alter the impression that, in
general, the attitude of the early unmistakable muhaddithun towards the
historians was one of suspicion and distrust.
Returning now to Sayf b. 'Umar one realizes that he was not especially
notorious. Together with other akhbäriyyün he was repudiated by the
muhaddithun but appreciated as a historian. We may again turn to Dhahabi
for an illustration of the differentiation. Dhahabi records Sayf in his Mizan
al-Ptidal as a weak source and a forger of hadith, yet refers to him as a
knowledgeable akhbari, and quotes hi™ many times in his Ta*rikh al-
Isläm*5) Not surprisingly, Ibn Adi's and Ibn H ajar's evaluations of Sayf
are wholly based on the negative opinions of the muJuiddithun, but so is also
Safadfs, whose work is not particularly jffodiiA-orientated.46) Again out-
42
) Ibn Adi 6/2125. Also quoted by Kister. Cf. Abu Zur'a pp. 537-8: already in
the third century he is concerned with apologetics on behalf of Ibn Ishäq.
43
) JuynboU p. 164.
44
) Kister p. 78.1 am not sure that such a statement ought to be taken at face
value.
45
) Dhahabi, 1/437-8. Cf. 'All's view above p. 4, and 'Armüsh p. 27.
46
) Ibn Adi 3/1271-2. Ibn IJajar, TaMkib 4/295-6. gafadi 16/66.

Authenticated
side the field ofHadith, Ibn al-Nadim allots Sayf one and a half lines of bare
facts with no reference to either praise or criticism.47) Yäqüt, oddly enough,
does not record him at all in his Udaba* although he quotes him several
times in the Mu'jam al-Buldan.
Distinguished historians do not seem to be aware of Sayf s notoriety.
Perhaps the most critical historian in Islamic history is Ibn Khaldün. As is
well known, Ibn Khaldün tried to carve for History a place of honour among
the sciences. In the process he passed severe criticism on his predecessors,
including historians whom he himself revered, e. g. Mas'udi. He argued that
even the most outstanding and universally accepted historians were likely
to make mistakes, therefore new (Khaldünian) scientific principles should
be applied to their works in order to assess them properly. As such out-
standing historians Ibn Khaldün names Sayf b. TJmar alongside Mas'udi,
Tabari, Ibn Ishäq, Wäqidi and others. There is no hint that he was aware of
any previous criticism of Sayf (or any of the others whom he mentioned); if
he was, apparently he did not think that it was relevant.48) Likewise, Sak-
häwi mentions Sayf without any reference to a bad reputation. In a passage
dealing with the diversification of the historiographical work, Sakhawi
quotes Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 59771200) as observing that every historian has his
own purpose according to which he selects his material, omitting what is
outside the scope of his work. Thus some historians deal with kings and
caliphs, others with scholars and zidihad&nd so forth.49) Sakhawi goes on to
quote Ibn Abi al-Dam (d. 642/1244) who expressed a similar idea and illus-
trated it with a list of authors each of whom pursued a different interest.
The list comprises Müsä b. TTqba, Tabari, al-Khatib, Sayf, Ya'qubi, Mubar-
rad, Ibn (Abd Rabbihi, Ibn Qutayba, Abu Nu'aym. Obviously Sayf is here in
good company and there in no comment to single him out in any respect.
Sakhawi makes only one general remark: in his opinion (contrary to that of
Ibn Abi al-Dam) all of the above mentioned scholars did fail to mention a
lot of (relevant) material.50)
The question put forward by modern scholarship concerning Tabari's
use of Sayf thus appears unwarranted, Sayf being only one of many who
were discredited by muhaddithun, and appreciated by other authorities.
The latter differentiation is demonstrable and does not seem surprising
47
) Fihrüt p. 97.
48
) Ibn Khaldün, Muqaddima 1/210.
49
) Note that Ibn al-Jawzi does not differentiate between political history and
biography; see below.
60
) Sakhawi, Plam p. 162 = tr. Rosenthal pp. 436-7. Ibn Abi al-Dam was a
Qadi, historian and muhaddith\ see Kahhäla 1/53-4.

Authenticated
once it is accounted for by competitiveness between disciplines. What is

puzzling is the fact that historiographic source-criticism did not develop as
an independent discipline alongside Ifadith-cnticism. If not a theoretical
discussion of the field, one would at least expect a tabaqat genre to have
evolved for historiographers, as the fabaqat is in certain cases a form of
source — or literary-criticism (e.g. the rijal books; the tabaqat of poets).
But, although there are tabaqat of all sorts, from Quran reciters to chess
players, there is none for historians.61) This is odd in view of the highly
developed historical consciousness of the Muslim community, the rele-
vance of history to its theological and political life, and the extensive
historiographical work which it produced. For all their interest in source-
criticism the Muslim scholars focused on hadith, and as far as they dealt
with historians they treated them as muhaddithun in disguise, and did not
try to evaluate them for what they were. Such authorities as Ibn al-Nadim,
Ibn Khallikän and Yäqüt, who based their judgement on considerations
other than those ofthejarfy wa-ta'dil, were rare. Besides, they too were not
specifically concerned with historiographic source-criticism. Even when
Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 764/1362) summed up the qualities desired in a
mu*arrikh, e.g. truthfulness, impartiality etc., he meant by mu*arrikh not
the historian but the biographer, and he was thinking in terms of the per-
sonal relashionship which may obtain between a biographer and his con-
temporaries, and influence his writing about them.52)
It has already been argued by F. Rosenthal that historiography "never
achieved the position of an academic subject", which means that it was not
taken seriously at the theoretical and methodical levels. It was only in the
late eighth century that the first treatise on the theory of historiography
was compiled.53) Contemporaneously and also later, IbnKhaldün and Sak-
häwi found it necessary to engage in apologetics on account of the study of
history.54) In the absence of genuine historiographic source-criticism in
Muslim scholarship we should not be tempted to use hadith-cnticism as a
surrogate. The question which should be asked is not "why didTabari draw
on Sayf who was weak (in the opinion of the miiâddithun)99, but "why did
Wellhausen, Caetani and their numerous followers totally reject Sayf who
was trusted (by eminent historians)"?
51
) See the genres of the biographical dictionaries in P. Auchterlonie, Arabic
biographical dictionaries, Durham 1987.1. Hafsi, "Recherches surle genre tabaqat",
Arabica 1976 pp. 227-65, 1977 pp. 1-41, 150-86.
52
) gafadi 1/46-7, quoting Subki.
63
) Rosenthal pp. 31-54.
54
) Ibn Khaldün 1/208-58. Sakhäwi, I'läm, tr. Rosenthal pp. 263-529.

Authenticated
It must be admitted that Wellhausen's rejection of Sayf was not based

on rij l books but on his own methods in text criticism. Likewise it was
methodical considerations which led Sezgin, Noth and Hinds to invalidate
Wellhausen's view and to place Sayf on an equal footing with the other his-
torians. But these methodical considerations, whose ingenuity and impor-
tance cannot be underestimated, do not fully answer at least two of the
points made by Sayf s modern critics: first, that his accounts are often uni-
que and at odds with all of the other sources. Secondly, that he mentions
many names of both people and places which are not to be found in other
sources. According to the critics both facts indicate that Sayf invented, or
severely tampered with his accounts. It is this claim that I would now like
to deal with in some detail.
The uniqueness of Sayf s traditions

As a preliminary remark I would like to adduce the observation made
by L Conrad that "consensus bears no necessary relation to historical
truth"55). I think that this statement must be recognized as valid and needs
no elaborate discussion. One example may suffice: the "year of the Ele-
phant". The consensus of both classical and modern authorities applies
the name to the year 570 A.D., but in all probability, the historical "year of
the Elephant" was 552 A.D., as claimed by some marginal traditions.56)
The implications are obvious: the uniqueness of Sayf s reports does not
make them less historical than others, even when the latter seem to form a
consensus.
The assessment of a tradition as unique is naturally a consequence of a
comparison drawn between other traditions and the particular one. A. Noth
argues that there is no solid basis for comparison between Sayf and the
other compilers because the material which has come down to us is not
complete; in particular, the so called Medinan material is lacking.57) The
claim of Sayf s uniqueness is thus stripped of meaning by Noth's argument,
as is the sense in drawing comparisons. Yet it seems that if whole compila-
tions cannot be compared, it is at least justifiable to compare individual
accounts, the purpose being not the typification of the sources but the
reconstruction of specific events. This of course was the method applied by
5
*) Conrad, "Southern Palestine" p. 48.
äâ
) Ì. J. Kister, "The Campaign of Hulub n", LeMuseon 78,3-4 1965 pp. 425-
436. L. Conrad, "Abraha and Muhammad: some observations apropos of chrono-
logy and literary topoi in the early Arabic historical tradition", BSOAS 50, 2, 1987
pp. 225-40.
57
) Noth, QriettenJcritische Studien pp. 20-1.

Authenticated
Wellhausen and his disciples, with the constant result that Sayf was in the
wrong, the reason often being the very uniqueness of his narrative. What
escaped them, however, is that sometimes what appear to be contradictory
versions of one and the same event ("SayF vs. "the others") are in fact dis-
crete accounts of disparate events. In such cases, of course, the seemingly
contradictory stories are neither comparable nor mutually exclusive. Such
is the case of the activity of the tribal leader €Adi b. Hätim during the ridda.
Waqidi, Ibn Ishäq, Sha'bi and Ibn A'tham all describe his activity among
his fellow-tribesmen prior to his arrival at Medina to meet Abu Bakr. The
very different account of Sayf is not a unique version of the same, but an
account of Adi's activity since his visit to Medina onwards. There is thus
no point in Caetani's effort to decide where the historical truth lies between
these two stories.58) Another case in point is the account of the ridda among
the tribe of Tamim. An analysis of all the relevant traditions is beyond the
scope of the present study, but a few points can be made without going into
full detail. According to Sayf, when Muhammad died the tribe of Tamim
was divided, several Tamimite lineages being on the verge of war with one
another. At that point the false prophetess Sajäh arrived from Mesopota-
mia leading an army. One of the Tamimite parties joined forces with her in
order to fight the other party, but this coalition was defeated. Wellhausen
speaks of "significant differences between Sayf and the others"59), but in
fact the other sources do not even touch on these events, nor do they offer
an alternative scenario. There is therefore no basis for comparison except
on one important point, namely the number and names of the Tamimite
leaders who supported Sajäh; in other words, the extent of the ridda among
the Tamim. According to Sayf, only a small part of the Tamim collaborated
with Sajäh, whereas other sources record the names of many Tamimite
leaders who supported her. In the opinion of Wellhausen and Caetani it was
evident that Sayf forged the authentic data because, being a Tamimite him-
self, he wanted to play down the participation of his tribe in the ridda.60)
They therefore reject Sayf s account and conclude on the basis of the
other sources that the majority of the Tamim joind the false prophetess. A
close examination of these sources, however, leads to the conclusion that
this opinion, logical as it sounds, is not solidly based. The sources are 1)
Tabari I 1911-14 2) Tabari I 1917-19 3) Aghani 12/157 4) Aghani IS/
166.
58
) Caetani 2/576 (par. 90). See E. Landau-Tasseron, "The Participation of
Tayy in the ridda," JSAI 5, 1984, 53-71.
59
) Wellhausen 6/12.
60
) Ibid. 14. Caetani 2/635 (par. 164).

Authenticated
The report in Tabari 11917-19 is anonymous, and deals with the rela-
tions between Sajäh and the false prophet Musaylima in very obscene
terms. The delight which the narrator took in the elaboration of obscenities
is obvious. In addition, the story purports to explain the custom common
among some Tamimite factions, to pray only three times instead of five
times a day. The explanation which it offers is that exemption from two
prayers was given the Tamimites by Musaylima as bride-money when he
married their fellow-tribeswoman Sajäh. At the end of the story the narra-
tor mentions the fact that the tribal confederacy of Rabi'a used to slander
their adversaries Mudar (to whom the Tamim belonged) on account of
Sajäh. (We may of course assume that in return Mudar would boast on
account of Muhammad, but the story does not say it.) I do not think that
one should expect the narrator of such a folk-tale to adhere to historical
truth when it comes to the names of the Tamimite leaders involved. Amus-
ing pastime, not historical accuracy, is the concern of this story, and the
narrator probably threw in all the names he could remember in order to
augment the impression made on the audience (or readers). This assump-
tion is corroborated by the fact that several of the Tamimite leaders men-
tioned in this story, as well as in the following ones, were not leaders at the
time of the ridda but acquired their status only in later periods (e. g. al-
Ahnaf b. Qays, Häritha b. Badr, Shabath b. Rib'i). The fact that they are
mentioned as supporters of Sajäh, in a story whose purpose is to amuse and
slander, cannot be adduced as evidence of the extent of the ridda among the
Tamim.
The tradition in the Aghänl 18/166 is evidently a reproduction of the
obscene tale from Tabari, except that here it forms part of a larger story.
The whole story is ascribed to Sayf, although the original story in Tabari is
defined as coming from sources other than Sayf.61) That part of the story
which is added here in theAghaniis a collection of nonsense. Sajäh is made
to utter a supposedly inspired verse; this verse is taken from stories about
Musaylima and is usually ascribed to him.62) She instigates the Tamim
against the tribal confederacy of Rabi'a; but her own army was composed
of Rabi'i groups. She declares that God gave the power/rule (amr) to
Mudar; yet she agitates the Tamim against Quraysh (both tribes belong to
Mudar). In the first three lines of the story, it is mentioned three times that
61
) Tabari says, "wa-amma ghayr sayffa-innahu dhakara. . . *. One detail of the
story is ascribed to al-Kalbi, which made Caetani ascribe the whole story to him:
Caetani 2/633 (par. 164); cf. Wellhausen 6/14, «Kalbi and others".
e2
) E.g. Ihn ffishäm 4/247.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn 'Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 15
all the Tamim supported Sajah, and names of leaders are adduced. All of
them are leaders of the generation after the ridda. Last but not least, even
the isnad is garbled. It runs "Ibrahim b. al-Nasawi Yafrya quoting his
father, quoting Shu'ayb, quoting SayP whereas the correct isnad as
appears in Tabari is al-Sari b. Yahya quoting Shu'ayb b. Ibrahim quoting
Sayf (quoting al-ija'b b. 'Aftyya quoting his father.)63) The combination of
the obscene story with such a miscellany does not inspire much confidence.
It seems to me that the purpose here is to ridicule the Tamimites and to
slander them as murtaddün. Ironically this anti-Taraimite story is ascribed
to the Tamimite historian Sayf, apparently in order to lend it credibility. It
should not be accepted as evidence preferable to Sayf tradition as pre-
served in Tabari. In fact it should rather be dismissed altogether as histori-
cal evidence.
The tradition in the Aghani 12/157 deals with the Tamimite leader
Qays b. 'Aîm. He is said to have supported Sajah and to have been her
mu*adhdhin. This contradicts the information recorded by Sayf that Qays
remained neutral — he neither joined nor fought Sajah, and after she had
been defeated by the local forces he joined the Muslim army which arrived
from Medina.64) Wellhausen and Caetani reject Sayf s tradition as biased
and accept the evidence of this tradition in the Aghani But this evidence is
not at all impartial. Its source is 'Allan the Shu(ubite, whose literary activ-
ity concentrated on slandering the Arabs.66) The specific information with
which we are here concerned forms part of a frontal attack on the Banü
Minqar in general and their leader Qays b. 'Aîm in particular. There is no
reason to prefer such a source as 'Allan al-Shu'ubi to Sayf al-Tamimi.
The text in Tabari I 1911-14 contains several verses of poetry. On the
basis of these, Wellhausen and Caetani argue that many, or most of the
Tamimite leaders supported Sajah.66) Such a conclusion simply cannot be
reached on the basis of these verses, which mention only three Tamimite
leaders by name. The reference to "troops" (jatäib) and "groups" (thubin)
which may connote "many" can easily be interpreted as poetic exaggera-
tion rather than realistic information. One is reminded of Zayd al-KhayPs
grand-daughter who, impressed by her grandfather's description of great
armies and swift horses, inquired how many horses were involved; "three",
e3
) Tabari 1/1908-9. Aghani 14/66.
4
) Tabari 1/1909, 1914, 1963.
5
) Yäqüt, Udabä* 12/193-6. Fihrist p. 104-5.
) Wellhausen 6/14. Caetani 2/635 (par. 164).

Authenticated
was the answer.67) It thus appears that the four sources adduced by Well-
hausen as contradicting Sayf s report are far from being reliable.
Wellhausen rejected Sayf s report about the ridda of the Tamim not
only because it was at variance with the other sources mentioned above,
but also because he believed that it contained an inner contradiction con-
cerning the Tamimite leader al-Qa'qa'. In one place Sayf reports that al-
Qacqac fought on Sajäh's side and was taken prisoner among others of her
supporters. In another place he depicts al-Qa'qa* as a hero who fought on
the Muslim side against the murtaddun**) According to Wellhausen and
Caetani, what we have here is an illustration of Sayf s notorious bias for his
tribe: he tried to obfuscate al-Qa'qä0 s role in the ridda and to impute heroic
deeds to him. But in fact, the two reports mentioned above are incompar-
able, because they deal with two different persons, a fact passed unnoticed
by Wellhausen and his followers (including Zetterstein, who wrote the
entry on al-Qa<qa< in the E.I.). Al-Qa'qa* who fought by Sajäh's side
belonged to the Banü TJqfan, Sajäh's own lineage.69) The genealogy of the
other al-Qa'qa', the hero whose exploits are highly praised, is not given
anywhere, odd as this may sound. Fortunately, however, there is one refer-
ence to his brother 'Asim which discloses the mystery. He is surnamed "oZ-
tamlml thumma -'awn", which means the Banü 'Amr b. Tamim.70) This
information tallies perfectly with what we know from both Sayf and other
sources: the Banü are not mentioned anywhere as participants in the
ridda, and according to Sayf they remained loyal to Islam and fought Sajäh.
It makes perfectly good sense that al-Qa'qa, kin of Sajäh, fought on her
side, whereas al-Qa<qa< of the Banü 'Amr remained with his own kin and
fought against her. It thus turns out that al-Qa'aq' b. is not an illustra-
tion of Sayf s tampering with authentic information, but of a mistake ensu-
ing from comparing incomparable data. It appears that doubtful evidence
and a methodical mistake formed the basis of the conclusion drawn by
Wellhausen and Caetani, that most of the Tamim took part in the ridda, and
that the Tamimite historian Sayf made it his concern to cover up for them.
We may conclude that even if Sayf s report is unique it certainly cannot be
rejected on account of this trait.
"") Abu al-Baqa' fol. 60 b. The author deals extensively with the Arab exaggera-
tions, poetic and otherwise; see fols. 1-64.
68
) Wellhausen loc. cit. Caetani loc. cit. The references are to Tabari 1/1911,
1913, 1920, as against 1899, 2021. Noth would explain such a contradiction as a
proof that Sayf reproduced the accounts as they reached him; see "Sammlungen"
pp. 171-2.
69
) Tabari 1/1920, 1911.
70
) Ibid. 2225.

Authenticated
Names of people and places

The case which we shall presently examine is Sayf s account of the
apostasy of the tribal coalition which comprised groups from the Banü
Asad, Ghatafan, Tayy and Kinäna. Wellhausen and Caetani rejected the
whole account for two reasons: a) it is unique b) it has the names of the
leaders wrong, and it contains references to people and places unknown to
any other source.71) I do not deem it necessary to go again into detail con-
cerning the charge of uniqueness. Suffice it to say that there is no real con-
tradiction between the accounts of Sayf and the other sources, because
they do not deal with the same events, except in one case. Indeed the two
sets of reports can be interpreted as complementing one another. This is
also the clue to the tribal leaders. According to Wellhausen Sayf is not to be
trusted because he mentions al-Härith and €Awf as leaders of the Ghatafan,
whereas in reality (i. e. on the basis of other sources) the Ghatafanite lead-
ers were TJyayna b. Hisn, his brother Khärija, and Manzür b. Zabän, all
three of whom are not mentioned by Sayf at all.72) Two facts were here
ignored by Wellhausen, although in other contexts he was aware at least of
the first of them: "Ghatafan", as any other tribal name, is a name which
refers to a confederacy of independent tribal groups each of which had its
own leaders. Secondly, in the Arabic nomenclature the name of any given
confederacy is interchangeable with the "private names" of its consti-
tuents. Thus when the name Ghatafan is used in a story it usually does not
stand for the whole confederacy but for one of its factions, e. g. Murra,
Fazära, Tha'laba etc.73) TJyayna, Khärija and Manzür, mentioned by
sources other than Sayf, were not the leaders of "Ghatafan" but only of one
faction, namely Fazära. The reason why they are not mentioned by Sayf is
that his report does not deal with Fazära at all, but with other factions.
Al-Harith and (Awf whom he mentions are not fictional names but simply
leaders of other Ghatafanite lineages. Admittedly, Wellhausen's distrust in
this case may have been inspired by the way Sayf recorded the names of
these leaders: "al-Harith son of so-and-so (fulari), one of the Banü Subay',
was leading the Banü Tha'laba and Abs" and a<Awf, son of so-and-so, son
of Sinän, was leading the Banü Murra".74) Yet all the details fall into place:
the Banü Subay( were indeed the leading family of the Ghatafanite lineage
Tha'laba; Sinän is the ancestor of one of the most important families of the
71
) Wellhausen 6/10-12. Caetani 2/596f (par. 118-119).
72
) Wellhausen 6/12.
73
) See E. Landau-Tasseron, "Asad from Jähiliyya to Islam", JSAI 6 1985
pp. 1-28.
74
) Tabari 1/1873.
2 Islam LXVII, Heft 1

Authenticated
Banü Murra, another Ghatafanite lineage.75) There is thus no contradiction

between Sayf and the other sources concerning the identity of the leaders
of Ghatafan, and there is no reason to reject Sayf s report on account of its
reference to "unknown leaders".
The case of the unknown places is at once simple and puzzling. Sayf
describes an attack of the Ghatafan and their allies on Medina followed by
a battle in a place called D hü Husä. Wellhausen argues that there was no
attack on Medina and no such battle, because no place by the name D hü
Husä exists. "Dhü Husä is a place which is nowhere to be found", he
says.76) Ironically, the version which he does accept (Zuhrf s account) con-
tains a toponym which is virtually unknown too,77) but this is not the main
point. The simple and puzzling fact is that Dhü Husä is a quite well-known
place located in the territory of the Ghatafan. It is recorded in the geogra-
phical dictionaries and in other sources as well, and I cannot explain why
Wellhausen overlooked it. The fact that Sayf spells it with an alifmaqsüra
whereas the other sources spell it with a long alif does not seem a good
enough reason, the two alifs being of course interchangeable.78)
When Caetani spoke of "two toponyms unknown to all Arab geograph-
ers" he meant the above mentioned Dhü Husä, and the place called Tayba,
where Sayf s report locates one of the apostates' camps.79) Caetani is right
that there is no place called Tayba which is right for the context in which
Sayf mentions it, yet he is wrong, as is clear from a parallel text. Ibn 'Asakir
preserved the very same account from Sayf, and in his version the name of
the place is not Tayba but Tamiyya.80) This place fits the context perfectly:
it is a mountain in the territory of a Ghatafanite lineage, and it makes good
sense that Fazära encamped there. It is worthy of note that the information
given by Yäqüt about Tamiyya is of two kinds, topographical and mytholo-
gical. It is independent of historical material and contains no allusion to the
ridda.sl) The place doubtlessly exists and is not a creation of Sayf s mind.
75
) Ibn Qutayba, Mtfärifp. 38. Nuwayri, Nihaya 15/363. Ibn Hazrn, Jamhara
p. 252.
7
) Wellhausen 6/10.
77
) 'Awsaja; see Kalä'i, Ridda (ed. Kh. Färiq) p. 19 n. 4. The place is mentioned
by name with no detail in Bakri, Mu'jam 3/1087.
78
) See Bakri s. v. v. IJusa, Aja, Janafa*. Nuwayri 15/359. 'Iqd 3/57. Näbigha
p. 49. Yäqüt s.v. s.v.v. Ärik, Hisä*.
79
) Caetani 2/594 (par. 115 n. 2), 596, 597, 599 (par. 119). Tabari 1/1873.
80
) Ibn 'Asakir 7/95 (line 1). Note that in the Arabic script Tayba and Tamiyya
can easily be interchanged.
81
) Yäqüt 3/548-9; cf. Manäsik p. 610 n. 1.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn IJmar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 19
The claim that Sayf invented people and places was carried to the
extreme by M. 'Askari in his book 'Abdallah b. Saba\ In a chapter entitled
"companions of the Prophet invented by SayF (niukhtcdaqat sayfmin al-
sahaba) he claims that Sayf invented no less than a hundred persons, of
whom <Askari records the names of forty.82) It must be admitted that as a
rule these names indeed cannot be found in sources other than Sayf. In
addition to the few rijal and geographical dictionaires checked by (Askari
himself I checked many other sources of various kinds, with very meagre
results. Yet it seems to me that these meagre results, combined with what
was hitherto said, may suffice to indicate that Sayf did not create people
and places. In what follows the results are presented.
Al-Qa'qa* and 'Asim sons of €Amr

In Sayf s accounts of the ridda and the conquests these two Tamimite
brothers cut outstandingly heroic figures. In the accounts of the civil war
the same al-Qacqac figures as a very important supporter of cAli. (Askari
checked many sources in this case, including ShTite rijal books, but could
not find any trace of the two, so he took them to be fictitious.83) To prove
their non-existence Askari quotes (among others) Ibn €Abd al-Barr: "'Áîþç
b. 'Amr the Tamimite, brother of al-Qa'qa* b. <Amr as recorded by Sayf.
According to the muhaddithun these two were not companions of the Pro-
phet, they did not meet him, and did not transmit hadith, and God knows
best. They excelled in the battles of Qadisiyya and fought very well."84)
This quotation does not necessarily prove that the brothers never existed,
even though all the information about them is derived from Sayf. What it
proves is that since they never transmitted hadith (and apparently no
hadiths were ascribed to them), they were as good as non-existant for the
muhaddithun9s purposes. If it was falsely claimed that they were ?ahabis
then theirs is not an isolated case, nor are such claims confined to Sayf s
traditions. The status of Sahaba was a much desired one, and false claims
were made not only for contemporaries of Muhammad, but also for people
who had died long before Islam appeared on the scene. It was of course the
descendants of these people who sought to improve their own status by glo-
rifying their ancestors.86) That a person's status as a $ahabiis doubtful does
82
) «Askari pp. 158-189.
83
) Ibid. pp. 161-181.
84
) Ibid. 181.
85
) E.g. theTaiteeponymAwsb.Earithab.La'm; seeIbnQajar,/*o6a 1/81-2,
134.
2* Islam LXVH, Heft 1

Authenticated
not put hie very existence under the shade of doubt. As we have seen, not
only was there a Qa'qa' b. cAmr, there were two of them.86) At least one of
the two, the kin and supporter of Sajäh, adds no glory to anyone and there
was no reason whatsoever for Sayf to have invented him. As for the other
one, perhaps he should not be credited with everything imputed to him by
Sayf, but he should not be regarded as a phantom either. Last but not least,
'Aîm b. 'Amr does exist outside Sayf s tradition. In an account of the battle
of the Bridge transmitted by Ibn Ishäq, (Ä$im figures as one of the Muslim
commanders. Ibn Ishäq's account resembles the one transmitted by Sayf,
except that the latter is more detailed.87)
Another missing person, suspect as being Sayf s own creation, is one
Afif b. al-Mundhir, of whom Sayf tells that he fought during the ridda on
the Muslim side.88) This 'Afif too exists outside Sayf s narratives: Kala'i, in
his Hurub al-Ridda, transmits some information about him, which tallies
with the details given by Sayf. Kala'i's sources for this information (in
addition to Sayf) are Ibrahim (b. Ismä'il) b. Abi Ilabiba (d. 165/780) and
Ishäq b. Yahyä b. Talha (d. 164/779). I could find no connection between
Sayf and any of these two transmitters, which means that the information
about cAfif comes from independent sources and he cannot be the creation
of Sayf s mind. That all the sources on Afif are considered by the ahl al-
hadith as unreliable is irrelevant.89)
From 'Askari's list of forty I could find only two persons in sources
other than Sayf. Yet I think that the reason why so many people present in
Sayf s narratives are missing from other sources is not that Sayf invented
them, but that apparently not all the traditions which were in circulation
were eventually put in writing, and not all the important people were
recorded in the books. One may come across persons who seem to have
been quite important, yet details about them are sparse if not completely
lacking. Such is 'Awf Dhü al-Khimarayn, who was a key figure in the ridda
according to Sayf, but is not mentioned in this connection in other sources,
and there is no certainty even about the correct form of his name. There is
no doubt that he was a real person, for his descendants were known to have
8e
) 'Aekari did not touch on the seeming contradiction in al-Qa'qä" s biography;
see above.
87
) Ibn lehaq's account: Khalifa 1/92-3. Sayf account: Tabari 1/2179.
88 c
) Askari p. 186.
89
) Kala'i (Ghanim) pp. 200, 202, 206. On Ishäq b. Yahyä see Dhahabi, Mizan
1/95. Ibn 'Adi 1/325-7. Ibnflajar, Tahdhib 1/254-5. On Ibrahim b. Abi IJabiba: Ibn
'Adi 1/234-6. Ibn IJajar op. cit. 1/104-5. Ironically, not Sayf but Waqidi records
traditions from these weak tranmittere; see Tabari, index.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn «Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 21
been a respected family in the Jazira.90) It stände to reason that these des-
cendants found embarassing his important role in the ridda and did their
best to forget him, and this is why hardly any detail can be found about
him. People who may be of interest to us were left out of the records even in
later periods, and for no obvious reasons. For example, the family of (Abd
al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Man?ur b. Thabit transmitted traditions about
Jerusalem during the early Abbasid period. None of them is recorded in the
rijäl books, but there is no doubt that they are historical figures because
they report about important historical events which have nothing to do
with political or theological controversies, such as an earthquake in 1297
747.91) A parallel case is that of the descendants of Sälim b. Qusayr. Salim
himself is well-known, as he was governor of Jerusalem on behalf of Mu'a-
wiya. His descendants and their relatives transmitted traditions about
Jerusalem, but they are not recorded in the rijäl dictionaries, not even Abd
al-Saläm b. Saläm, who reports that he carried out some minor renovation
in the Dome of the Rock, on the request of the caliph al-Mahdi.92) It thus
appears that not every historical figure entered the dictionaries, and con-
versely that persons who are not recorded therein are not necessarily ficti-
tious.
In addition to the personal names, Askari adduces several toponyms
which he thinks were invented by Sayf.93) Again, the combing of many
sources hardly yielded any results, and in only two cases could I find the
supposedly invented place. One of them is Thaniyyat al-Rukkab, men-
tioned by Sayf in connection with the conquest of Nihawand. It seems to be
known to Ibn al-Faqih and to many physicians by the name of Aqabat al-
Rukkäb; thaniyya and 'aqaba are interchangeable.04) The other is a place
which Sayf calls Tawus, apparently a form of the well-known Persian topo-
nym Tawwaj.95) All the other toponyms mentioned by Askari are still
"missing"; but it must be remembered that toponyms are even more prob-
lematic than personal names because, being often devoid of lingual mean-
ing, they are prone to become garbled in the course of transmission. Unless
a place is well-known, or else personally known to the writer/tranmitter/
90
) Tabari 1/1892-3. Ibn IJajar, I$aba 3/42. Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-ghaba 4/155.
Ibn al-Kalbi 55 a. Ibn Bazm 195.
91
) See A. Elad, "Muslim holy places" p. 10. The traditions transmitted by the
family are in Wäsitä, nos. 119, 122, 135-40.
92
) Idem, "Markets of Jerusalem" pp. 34-6.
93
) Askari pp. 190-3.
94
) Yaqut 1/935-6, 3/692. Cf. Ibn Rueta p. 314.
9
) The explanation of this form's derivation is in Hinds, "Pars" n. 135.

Authenticated
copyist, a mistake in its name cannot be rectified. An example of garbled

versions of a toponym is recorded by L. Conrad: the place Däthin (near
Gaza, where a battle occurred between the Muslims and the Byzantines)
figures in miscellanious forms in various narratives. These forms obviously
derive from copying mistakes: Däbiya, Dabiyya, Badan, Tadun, Thädin;
most of these, of course, are not recorded in the geographical dictio-
naries.96) Unknown to the geographers are sometimes also old toponyms
which were replaced by new ones in the course of time.97) The conlcusion is
that when Sayf records names which are not mentioned by other sources,
there are possibilities to account for it other than Sayf s own inventiveness.
The best way to undermine the belief, shared by so many scholars, in
Sayf s inventiveness (hence unreliability) is to provide parallels to his
accounts from other, independent sources. These of course are hard to
come by (or else Sayf would not have been considered unique in the first
place). A. Noth mentions cases in which Tabari points to similarity be-
tween accounts of Sayf and Ibn Ishäq;98) but we cannot judge whether these
are real parallels because Tabari supplies no textual details. In another
example adduced by Noth Sayf and Ibn Ishäq use the same locution with
the same purpose: the Muslims are depicted as "horsemen in daytime, her-
mits in the nights", in order to emphasize their twofold nature of valor and
piety.99) As Noth points out, this shows that both Sayf and Ibn Ishäq trans-
mitted a story which was in circulation (i. e. neither of them invented it).
However, the details of Sayf s framework story differ from those of Ibn
Ishäq's, and it could be argued that the locution "fursän bi-1-nahär wa-ruh-
bän bi-l-layl" is a unit transferable from one story to another (invented)
one. This is why the following example, trivial in itself, is significant: some
verses of poetry are transmitted independently by Sayf and two other
authorities. Tabari records almost identical verses from Sayf, TJmar b.
Shabba (d. 262/875) and Abdallah b. Ahmad (presumably Ibn Shabwayh
al-Marwazi, middle of the 3rd/9th century). The setting of the verses in all
three cases is the same (the battle of the Camel), and the three chains of
transmission are different, thus indicating independent sources.100) Sayf
records the verses on the authority of al-§cab b. 'Atiyya b. Biläl €an his
9e
) Conrad, "Southern Palestine", p. 43 and passim. Naturally not every
scholar would agree with the identification of each of these forms with Däthin.
97
) Idem, "Azdi" pp. 35-9. The case with which Conrad deals is Dayr Khälid,
which came to be known as Dayr §aliba.
98
) Noth, "Sammlungen", p. 179.
99
) Ibid. 179-80.
10
°) Tabari 4/517-8, 530. Abu Zur'a p. 659.

Authenticated
Sayf Ihn "Urnar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 23
father, the latter being the eyewitness.101) Ibn Shabba's chain of transmis-
sion is Abu al-Hasan 'an al-Mufaddal al-pabbi 'an 'Adi b. Abi 'Adi 'an Abu
Raja'. Abu al-Hasan is in all probability the historian Madä'ini. The scholar
al-Mufaddal (d. circa 170/786) was a contemporary and a compatriot of
Sayf, and the eyewitness was a Tamimi from Basra. The same Abu Raja'
figures as the eyewitness in the chain of transmission used by Abdallah b.
Ahmad, which runs as follows: 'Abdallah's uncle VmSulayznan €an Abdal-
lah 'an Jarir b. Häzim 'an Muhammad b. Abi Ya'qüb and Ibn €Awn €an Abu
Raja'. The tier in this chain which is parallel to Sayf time- and place-wise is
Jarir b. Häzim, a Basran who died in 175/791.102) His source Muhammad
b. Abi Ya(qub was a Tamimi from Basra. It thus appears that the verses
were in circulation in Basra and Sayf, alongside other scholars, picked
them rather than made them up. That he often picked up material neglect-
ed by others is not an indication that his material is less valuable.
The foregoing material points to the necessity to get rid of the prejudice
that "Sayf is likely to be wrong". It does not rehabilitate Sayf in the sense of
showing him as an impeccably trustworthy historian, because he certainly
picked and chose his material, applied sophisticated methods of editing,
reproduced biased accounts and added his own interpretations in the guise
of historical reports. But all of these procedures were followed by other his-
torians as well, including Ibn Ishäq and Waqidi who have been deemed to
represent a scholarship more reliable and impartial than that of Sayf. A
reconsideration of the material is needed in order to prove Sayf either right
or wrong on each case because, as the examples given above show, even
matters which were thought to be closed such as the ridda of Tamim may be
open to question. At the time, the modern critique of Sayf was a big step
forward in Islamic source-criticism. It appeared logical, well-based and
methodologically sound. It now seems that, having recourse to much richer
material than was available to our predecessors, and being less carried
away by the sheer novelty of the critical method, we may with due respect
part with the prejudice against Sayf which came as a by-product of that
valuable method.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aal Yäsin: Muhammad Hasan Aal Yäsin, Nv#ü§ al-Riddaß Taynkh al-Tabari, Bagh-
dad-Beirut 1973.
Abu al-Baqä': Abu al-Baqa* Hibat Allah, al-Manaqib al-Mazyadiyya Akhbär al-
Mulük al-Asadiyya, Ms. Br. Library ADD 23296.
101
) Tabari 4/516.
102
) Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib 2/69-72.

Authenticated
AbüZur'a: (Abd al-Rahmän b. Abdalläh Abu Zur'a al-Dimashqi, Ta*rikhAbiZur'a,

Damas. 1980.
Aghäni: (Ali b. al-Husayn Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahäni, Kitäb al-Aghäm, Bulaq 1295.
€
Ali: Jawäd , "Mawärid Ta'rikh al-Tabari", Majattat al-Majma* al^Rmi al-'Iräqi,
1950, 1/143-231, 2/135-90.
'Annüsh: Ahmad Rätib 'Arnmsh, al-Fitna wa-Waq'at al-Jamal, Beirut 1972.
'Askari: Murtadä al-'Askari: 'Abdattah b. Saba\ al-Madkhal, Bahth wa-Tahqiqßmä
Katabahu al-Mu*arrikhün wa-l-Mwtashriqün €an Ihn Saba* wa-Qi$a$ Islämiyya
Ukhrä mundhu al-Qarn al-Thäni al-Hijn hattä al-Yawm, Cairo 1381.
Balädhuri: Ahmad b. Yahyä al-Balädhuri, Futüh al-Buldän, ed. de Goeje, Leiden
1866.
Bakri: (Abdalläh b. cAbd al-Aziz al-Bakri, Mu'jam mä Istafam, Cairo 1951.
Bukhäri: Ismä'il b. Ibrahim al-Bukhäri, Kitäb al-Ta'rikh al-Kabvr, Beirut, Dar al-
Kutub al-llmiyya.
Caetani: L. Caetani, Annali dell Islam, vol. 2, Milano 1907.
Cahen: C. Cahen, "FHistoriographie Arabe: des Origines au Vüe s.H." Arabica, 33
1986, pp. 133-98.
Conrad: L. Conrad, "al-Azdf s History of the Arab Conquests in Biläd al-Sham:
Some Historiographical Observations", Proceedings of the Second Symposium on
the History of Biläd al-Shäm during the Early Islamic Period up to 40A.H./640
A.D., ed. M. A. Bakhit, Amman 1987.
Idem, The Early Muslim Campaigns in Southern Palestine", a forthcoming
study. I thank the author for the use of part of the typescript.
Dennett: D. C. Dennett, Conversion and thePott Tax inEarly Islam, Cambridge 1950.
Duii: €Abd al-cAziz al-Duri, Bahth Nash'at 'Ilm al-Ta*nkh Hnda al-*Arab, Beirut
1960, translated by L. Conrad as The Rise of Historical Writing Among the Arabs,
Princeton 1983.
Idem, Muqaddimaß Ta'rikh Sadr al-Islam, Beirut 1949.
Dhahabi: Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi, Mizän al-PtidalfiNaqd al-Rijal, Cairo
1325.
Idem, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, Beirut 1377.
Elad: A. Elad, "Muslim Holy Places in Jerusalem", a paper presented to the third
international colloquium From Jahiliyya to Islam, Jerusalem, June 30-July 7
1985, p. 10.
Idem, "An Old Arabic Tradition Concerning the Markets of Jerusalem",
Caiheara, Jerusalem, 24, 1982 (in Hebrew).
Fihrist: Muhammad b. Isma'il b. al-Nadim, Kitäb al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flügel, Leipzig
1871-2.
Gibb: H. A. R. Gibb, "Ta'rikh", Studies on the Civilization of Islam, Boston 1962.
De Goeje: M. de Goeje, Memoire sur la Conqutte de la Syrie, Leide 1900.
Goitein: S. D. Goitein, "Did TJmar forbid the Jews to live in Jerusalem?", Mdlilah, a
volume of studies 3-4, ed. E. Robertson andM. Wallenstein, Manchester 1950
pp. 157-165 (in Hebrew).
Hadiyyat al-'Arifin: Isma'il Pasha al-Baghdadi, Hadiyyat al-'Arifin, Istanbul 1955.
Hamüd: Hädi Husayn Hamüd, aal-Haytham b. cAdi", al-Mawrid, 4, 2, 1975/1395
pp. 62-6.

Authenticated
Sayf Ibn Vmar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship 25
Hinds: M. Hinds, The First Arab Conquests in Fare", Iran 22, 1984 pp. 39-53.
Idem, "Sayf b. TJmar's Sources on Arabia", Sources for the History of Arabia,
vol. I part 2, Riyad 1979, pp. 3-16.
Ibn Abi Hätim: <Abd al-Rahmän b. Abi Eiätim al-Räzi, Kitäb al-Jarh wa-l-Ta€dU9
Heyderabad 1952/1371.
Ibn <Adi: «Abdalläh b. <Adi b. al-Qaftan, al-Kämü f l al-QuOfä', Beirut 1984.
Ibn 'Asäkir: b. al-Ifasan b. 'Asäkir, Tahdhib Ta'rikhUm 'Asäkir, ed. IbnBadran,
Damas. 1329-49.
Ibn al-Athir: al-Din b. al-Athir, Usd al-GhäbafiMa'rifat al-$ahaba, Cairo 1280.
Ibn Hajar: Ahmad b. 'Ali b. Hajar, al-I§äba Tamyiz al-$ahäba, Cairo 1328.
Idem, Kitäb Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Heyderabad 1325-7.
Ibn Hazm: 'AK b. Ahmad b. Hazm, Jamharat Ansah aL-*Arab, Cairo 1962.
Ibn Hishäm: 'Abd al-Malik b. Hishäm, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, Cairo 1936.
Ibn al-Kalbi: Hishäm b. Muhammad al-Kalbi, Jamharat al-Nasab, Ms. Br. Lib. ADD
23297.
Ibn Khaldün: 'Abd al-Rahmän b. Khaldün, al-Muqaddima, ed. A. A. Wäfi, Cairo
1957-62.
Ibn Khallikän: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khallikän, Wafayät al-A'yän wa-Aribä*
Abnä* al-Zamän, Beirut 1968-72.
Ibn Qutayba: 'Abdalläh b. Muslim b. Qutayba, Kitäb al-Ma'ärif, Beirut 1970.
Ibn Rusta: Ahmad b. TJmar b. Rusta, Kitäb al-A €läq al-Nafisa, ed. de Goeje, Leiden
1892 (EGA VH).
Ibn Sayyid al-Näs: Muhammad b. Muhammad Ibn Sayyid al-Näs, *Uyün al-Atharfi
Funün al-Maghäzi wa-l~Shamä*ü wa-l-Siyar, Beirut 1980.
Iqd: Ibn 'Abd Rabbihi, al-'Iqd al-Farid, Cairo 1321.
Kahhäla: TJmar Ridä Kahhäla, Mu'jam al-Mu'attißn, Damas. 1957-61.
Kalä'i: Sulaymän b. Müsä al-Kalä'i, Hurüb al-Ridda, ed. Kh. Färiq, New Delhi 1970.
the same, ed. A. Ghanim, Cairo 1981.
Khalifa: Khalifa b. Khayyät al-TJsfuri, Ta*rOch, ed. A. D. al-TTmari, Najaf 1967.
Kister: M. J. Kister, "The Massacre of the Banü Qurayza: a Reexamination of a
Tradition", JSAI 8, 1986, pp. 61-96.
Juynboll: G. H. A. Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, Cambridge etc. 1983.
Lau: L. Lau, "Sayf b. TJmar and the Battle of the Camel, IQ 23,1979, pp. 103-110.
Manäsik: Abu Ishäq al-Harbi (?), Kitäb al-Manäsik wa-Amakin Turuq al-Hajj wa-
Ma'älim al-Jazira, ed. Hamad al-Jäsir, Riyad 1969.
Näbigha: al-Näbigha al-Dhubyäni, Diwan ma'a Sharhihi li-l-Wazir Abi Bahr *Ä$im
b. Ayyüb al-Batalyüsi, in Majmü€ Mushtamil 'alä Khamsat Dawäwln min Ash'är
al-'Arab, Cairo 1293.
Noth: A. Noth, "Der Charakter der Ersten Grossen Sammlungen von Nachrichten
zur Frühen Kalifenzeit", Der Islam 47, 1971, pp. 168-98.
Idem, Quettenkritische Studien zu Themen, Formen und Tendenzen fruhislamischer
Geschichtsüberliefemng, Bonn 1973.
Nuwayri: Ahmad b. *Abd al-Wahhäb al-Nuwayri, Nihäyat al-ArabflFunün al-Adab,
Cairo 1955.
Petersen: E. L. Petersen, *Ali andMu^äwiya in Early Arabic Tradition, Copenhagen
1964.

Authenticated
26 Ella Landau-Tasseron, Sayf Ihn TJmar
Rosenthal: F. Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, Leiden 1968.

§afadi: Khalil b. Aybak al-§afadi, al-Wäfi bi-l-Wafayät, Bibliotheca Islamica found-
ed by H. Ritter, 1931-1983.
Sakhäwi: Muhammad b. (Abd al-Rahmän al-Sakhäwi, al- bi-l-Tawbikh li-man
Dhamma al-Ta'rikh, Damas. 1349.
Schacht: J. Schacht, "On Müsä b. TTqba's Kitab aL-Maghäzi", AO 1953.
Shoufani: E. Shoufani, al-Ridda and the Muslim Conquest of Arabia, The Arab Insti-
tute for Research and Publication, 1972.
Tabari: Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Ta*rikh al-Rusul wa-1-Mulük, ed. M. de Goeje,
Leiden 1879-1901.
The same, ed. MA.F Ibrahim, Cairo 1960-72.
Wellhausen: J. Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vol. 6, Berlin 1899.
Wäsiti: Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Wäsiti, Fadä'il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, ed. I. Hasson,
Jerusalem 1979.
Yäqüt: Yäqüt b. «Abdalläh al-Rümi, Mu'jam al-Udabä\ Cairo 1936-8.
Idem, Mu'jam al-Buldän, ed. Wüstenfeld, Leipzig 1866.

Authenticated

Sayf Ibn &#39;Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sayf Ibn &#39;Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sayf Ibn TTmar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship

by Ella Landau-Tasseron (Jerusalem)

In recent years attention has been drawn to the notorious historian

*) Dennett p. 58. Wellhausen, Skizzenund Vorarbeitenvol. 6, especially pp. 1-7.

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

the spoils of the battle of Jalülä'.25) Significantly the editor of Khalifa's

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

once it is accounted for by competitiveness between disciplines. What is

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

It must be admitted that Wellhausen's rejection of Sayf was not based

The uniqueness of Sayf s traditions

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Names of people and places

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Banü Murra, another Ghatafanite lineage.75) There is thus no contradiction

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Al-Qa'qa* and 'Asim sons of €Amr

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

copyist, a mistake in its name cannot be rectified. An example of garbled

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

AbüZur'a: (Abd al-Rahmän b. Abdalläh Abu Zur'a al-Dimashqi, Ta*rikhAbiZur'a,

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

Rosenthal: F. Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, Leiden 1968.

Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University

You might also like

Sayf Ibn 'Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship

Sayf Ibn 'Umar in Medieval and Modern Scholarship